But activists, who have been instrumental in shedding light about the killer product of Monsanto, are still reminding people of the havoc the company is causing.

According to investigative journalist Carey Gillam, Monsanto has been using dubious means to suppress vital information for people who are being exposed to Roundup to decide if they want to use it or not.

Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer came under public scrutiny in the 1980s when tests on its primary ingredient, glyphosate, began to show cellular changes in laboratory animals that should have been considered early signals that the product could cause cancer. By mid 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had decided that glyphosate needed to be classified as a carcinogen.

But strangely, the EPA changed its mind in 2001, saying it was wrong to designate glyphosate as carcinogen and that the public had nothing to worry about as it is on top of the situation.

RT reports that the laboratory data from the 1980s that the EPA used to classify glyphosate as carcinogenic was suddenly taken out of the reach of the public. Monsanto defended this action by arguing that all the early testing results for the chemical fell under the protection of the trade secret law.

Gillam recently told RT that she has not given up on protecting the public interest against Monsanto.

“The cancer question is definitely a big one with this chemical. It is the most widely-used agrochemical in the world. It is in our water, food, our own bodies. This has been the way that I’ve described this to people. I was asked to come to Europe and to speak to parliament about this.”

She also revealed the clandestine tactics employed by Monsanto to make profit at the expense of public health.

“People haven’t had that choice, because any information about risk has been hidden, while the company has been trumpeted and pumped out information about reward. In doing so they’ve employed multiple strategies; they have ghost-written certain scientific papers; they’ve tried out surrogates – both within the EPA and the universities around the country – to try to control the public narrative and try to control what the public knows about this and what public doesn’t.”